Author: Trisha Kashyap, DY Patil College of Law
Abstract
The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala (1973) redefined the contours of constitutional jurisprudence in India, marking a historic turning point in the interpretation of constitutional powers. By introducing the doctrine of the basic structure, the judgment established a pivotal check on Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, ensuring that the foundational principles and ethos of the Constitution remain inviolable. This article delves into the intricate background, compelling arguments, judicial reasoning, and far-reaching implications of the case while critically examining its profound and enduring impact on the evolution of Indian constitutional law.
To The Point
The Indian Constitution is said to be flexible, with Article 368 giving the power to Parliament to amend, alter and even repeal the provisions of the Constitution. However, whether this power is absolute or not was an issue of controversy in the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti vs. the State of Kerala. This landmark case brought to the fore the tension between the principle of legislative sovereignty and the sanctity of constitutional ideals. Decided by an unprecedented 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, it holds a unique place in Indian constitutional history. The bench’s decision emphasized that although the Constitution extends wide-ranging powers to Parliament, those powers are not unfettered. Through the definition of the contours of amendment powers, judgment ensured that the core principles of the Constitution, its “basic structure,” are left intact. This case not only furthered the essence of constitutionalism but also established a robust mechanism to preserve the delicate balance between governance and individual freedoms, thereby setting a precedent for future jurisprudence.
Legal Jargon
Background
The Petitioner:
Swami Keshavananda Bharti, the head of Edneer Mutt, filed the petition challenging the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, which sought to impose restrictions on property ownership. These reforms, though aimed at equitable redistribution, were perceived as infringing upon the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution at that time. Bharti’s petition became a conduit for examining broader constitutional principles beyond property rights.
Previous Precedents:
Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951): This case upheld the constitutionality of the First Amendment, asserting that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was absolute, even if it encroached upon fundamental rights. The court opined that the term “law” under Article 13 did not encompass constitutional amendments, thus excluding such amendments from judicial review.
Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967): This judgment drastically changed the earlier position, holding that Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights through amendments. The Court adopted a prospective overruling doctrine, which meant that Parliament’s authority was limited and fundamental rights were placed beyond its legislative reach. This led to a constitutional deadlock, and hence the need for subsequent amendments.
Constitutional Crisis:
In response to Golak Nath, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments to restore its authority. These amendments:
Explicitly declared that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights (24th Amendment).
Article 31C was introduced which gave precedence to directive principles over fundamental rights if the former sought to bring about socio-economic changes (25th Amendment).
Specific land reform laws were placed in the Ninth Schedule, protecting them from judicial review (29th Amendment).
These amendments were seen as an overreach, undermining constitutional supremacy and inviting judicial intervention.
Key Issues
Scope of Article 368:
Does Article 368 give Parliament absolute power to amend the Constitution? This raised concerns about the potential misuse of legislative authority to subvert democratic principles.
Judicial Review:
Can constitutional amendments be subjected to judicial scrutiny? This tested the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional integrity.
The doctrine of Basic Structure:
Is there an inviolable core of the Constitution that Parliament cannot amend? This posed the fundamental question of whether certain principles transcended legislative and political considerations.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and must adhere to the Constitution’s essence. Parliament’s power cannot extend to destroying the Constitution’s foundational framework.
Fundamental rights are sacrosanct, representing the core values of the Constitution. Any attempt to curtail these rights undermines the Constitution’s democratic ethos.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Kerala):
Parliament’s power under Article 368 is supreme and unrestricted, enabling it to address socio-economic disparities effectively.
Land reforms and socio-economic measures necessitate curtailing certain rights to achieve equitable distribution. Shielding these reforms from judicial scrutiny ensures their uninterrupted implementation.
Judgment Analysis
Bench Composition and Decision:
This was the largest bench in Indian judicial history—13 judges delivered a verdict by a 7:6 majority. Such a razor-thin margin indicates how complex and divisive issues are.
The doctrine of Basic Structure:
Chief Justice S.M. Sikri said that though Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not change its “basic structure” or fundamental features. The doctrine offered a conceptual protection against possible legislative overreach.
Key elements identified were:
Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the highest law of the land, overriding all other statutes and governmental actions. The judgment in Keshavananda Bharti emphasized that any amendment or law in contravention of the Constitution’s core values would be struck down. This element ensures that legislative and executive actions remain subordinate to the constitutional framework, thereby safeguarding democracy and rule of law.
Secularism: Secularism, as underscored in the judgment, forms an integral part of the basic structure. It mandates the State to maintain neutrality towards all religions, ensuring freedom of religion for all citizens without discrimination. The judgment reinforced the idea that any legislative action undermining this neutrality would be unconstitutional.
Federalism: The case reiterated that India’s federal structure, characterized by the division of powers between the central and state governments, is a cornerstone of the Constitution. Any attempt to centralize or dismantle this balance of power would be deemed a violation of the basic structure, protecting the autonomy of states within the Union.
Separation of Powers: The doctrine of separation of powers, a foundational feature of democratic governance, ensures the independence and distinct functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The judgment held that encroachment by one branch on the powers of another would disrupt this balance and violate the basic structure.
Rule of Law: The judgment reaffirmed that the rule of law, which ensures equality before the law and accountability of public officials, is fundamental to constitutional governance. It upheld that no individual or institution, including Parliament, is above the law, ensuring justice and fairness in the system.
Judicial Review:
The Court recognized its responsibility as the custodian of constitutional ideals. It held that amendments violating the basic structure would be held unconstitutional, thereby reinforcing the principle of judicial supremacy.
Validation of Amendments:
The 24th and 25th Amendments were held valid subject to certain restrictions, underlining that the amendments could not run afoul of the Constitution’s basic structure. The 29th Amendment was upheld because it was not violative of the principles that the basic structure embodies.
Implications
Judicial Supremacy:
It has strengthened judicial review as a defender of constitutional integrity, and legislative acts will now conform to the tenets of democracy.
Checks on Legislative Power:
The doctrine curbs the absolute amending power of Parliament and ensures a balance of power, keeping the ethos of the Constitution intact.
Effect on Governance:
This doctrine has been invoked in some of the landmark cases to cancel amendments and uphold the basic structure. Some such landmark cases include Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980). These decisions are good examples of the timelessness of the basic structure doctrine.
The Proofs
Post-Keshavananda Development:
Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): Struck down the 39th Amendment, confirming the importance of free and fair elections.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980): The Court validated the doctrine by declaring amendments violating the constitutional base nugatory.
International Appreciation:
Doctrines similar to the Indian Basic Structure Doctrine, such as Germany’s “Ewigkeitsklausel” (eternity clause), similarly emphasize the unalterability of the fundamental values that constitute the Constitution.
Conclusion
The judgment in Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala represents a constitutional watershed, embedding the doctrine of basic structure as a safeguard against arbitrary legislative overreach. This landmark decision underscored the essence of constitutionalism—the principle that the Constitution, and not transient political majorities, forms the ultimate framework guiding governance and law. By meticulously delineating the limits of parliamentary power, the Supreme Court ensured that amendments would not erode the fundamental ethos and core principles of the Constitution. It affirmed that while the Constitution is a living document capable of adapting to societal changes, this adaptability does not extend to altering its basic structure, which encapsulates foundational values such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. Consequently, the judgment solidified a robust mechanism to preserve the Constitution’s sanctity and its reflection of the collective aspirations of the Indian people.
FAQS
What is the doctrine of basic structure?
It is a judicial principle asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament.
Why is Keshavananda Bharti considered a landmark case?
The case established limits on parliamentary power and introduced the doctrine of basic structure, shaping constitutional interpretation.
What elements constitute the basic structure?
While not exhaustively defined, key elements include the supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.
Has the doctrine been challenged?
While debated, the doctrine has been upheld in subsequent judgments, solidifying its role in constitutional jurisprudence.
How does the judgment impact governance?
It ensures that amendments align with constitutional ideals, preventing authoritarian tendencies and preserving democratic values.
